It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Does 1 part per 4 million Aluminium in rainwater prove chemtrails?

page: 2
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 28 2014 @ 03:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: rickymouse
a reply to: waynos

Could they be designing jet engines to make more contrails? Is it possible that there are people trying to control global warming, knowing this was coming years ago?

The probability of what I am saying is actually reasonably high. It does not mean it is dangerous or anything to be concerned of though. The government has hidden things it has done over my lifetime many times, why would they change.



They are designing engines which make more contrails, but not to make more contrails.

The engines are made to produce higher amounts of thrust, while keeping the amount of fuel burned (and thus the operating cost of the flight) to a minimum.

This is why an A380 of today can be powered by four engines, with a two-engined version on the drawing board, rather than the 24 engines which a similarly sized project of the 1950's (the Saunders Roe P.92) was calculated to need.

This is why the four engined Boeing 747 designed in the 1960's is being largely replaced by the 777 which carries the same number of passengers but has only two engines and why the latest 747-8 has been almost completely ignored by airlines. It's all about fuel economy, reliability and route viability. See also the death of the (4 engined) A340 and the sales success of the (2 engined follow on) A350 and rival 787.

Commercial aviation gives as much consideration to contrails as car manufacturers give to bugs hitting your windscreen.

Don't you think, if there was a plan to create more contrails, they'd have talked of greater efficiency whilst ensuring that the 150 seaters that needed four engines in the past, still needed four engines? It would make hanging 6 or 8 engines off the 777 and A380 incredibly easy to justify, with a resultant massive increase in contrail volume even above what we have now.

The more you think about it, the less 'probable' your idea looks.
edit on 28-5-2014 by waynos because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 28 2014 @ 05:32 PM
link   
a reply to: yeahright

Yeah, did some research. seems that the contrails themselves from jets are a big contributor to global warming. I doubt if they could use chemtrails to combat global warming, that is why they probably dropped the ball on using reflective chemical cloud technology last year. phys.org...

I know there are no trees way up in the sky to take in the exhaust of the jets. They are a major poluter in this world, especially because of the big increase in airtravel in the last twenty years.

I had read some research on using cloud cover to cancel the effect of climate change. I guess that was wasted money. It seems to me that if they taxed instead of subsidized air travel, this problem would go away. We do not need to be flying all over the world. Airfare raises emissions, because most people would not be going all over the world if it took a long time. It actually raised our overall consumption of fossil fuels when more people started flying. It was a big ecological mistake.



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 08:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: rickymouse
a reply to: yeahright
Yeah, did some research. seems that the contrails themselves from jets are a big contributor to global warming. I doubt if they could use chemtrails to combat global warming, that is why they probably dropped the ball on using reflective chemical cloud technology last year. phys.org...


That's not quite what the link says - it says contrails can have a larger effect than the CO2 that aircraft create (by 31 mW/M^2 to 28mW/M^2 - but it also notes that the CO2 can hang around for much much longer than contrails - up to hundreds of years - which I suspect is exaggeration - but even if only 1 year that's hundreds of times longer than even the longest lasting contrails.

Also contrails (or het cirrus clouds they can evolve into) only cover a part of the surface - so that 31 mW/M^2 isn't over the whole of the earth - whereas the effect of CO2 emissions is over the whole of the earth since it mixes into the general atmosphere - so the CO2 has a MASSIVELY greater effect!

more flying does indeed imply more fuel consumption - however advances in aircraft and navigation technology have also greatly increased the efficiency of air travel, to the point where the increase in fuel consumption is often less than 2% per year.

it is likely that adoption of even more advanced a/c (eg 787, A350) and navication (NextGen) will see a significant improvement in efficiency over the next 10 years as older generations of "new technology" become obsolete (eg 767, B737-3/4/500, A300)



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 10:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

Quote from link: German Aerospace Centre show that the contrails created by airplanes are contributing more to global warming that all the CO2 that has been caused by the entire 108 years of airplane flight.

Read more at: phys.org...

That is pretty self explanatory if it is right.

Also from link: Airplane contrails are the white clouds that we see in the sky spreading behind jets. These cirrus clouds are created when the hot, moist air released from the plane freezes in the colder and drier air. These clouds then trap the long-wave radiation from Earth and create a warming of the atmosphere.

Read more at: phys.org...

That also seems to be a self explanatory summation.

Now that is based on a 108 eight year estimation, contrails weren't so evident before and engines were less efficient so this takes into consideration higher than present emissions than present jets. So the new engines put out less CO2 and more contrails.

Another link I researched today stated NASA was investigating ways to reduce these contrails by researching different fuel chemistry to combat the negative effects on the atmosphere.

I actually did the research because of what yeahright responded to my post. I learned that the direction going by some scientific organizations was wrong with respect to modification of the atmosphere by creating clouds today.. Neat, seems like what I was finding on this subject about two years ago has now changed direction.


edit on 28-5-2014 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 10:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

It's very normal and common ah (in China ),they(Chinese government) often said they use silver iodide.



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 10:56 PM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse

So the new engines put out less CO2 and more contrails.
High bypass engines are more likely to produce contrails but persistence of contrails is determined by the humidity level. So, you may see a plane with older engines flying next to one with new engines and only the new engines will produce contrails if the conditions are marginal for contrail production. But those contrails will not persist.

But, if conditions are conducive to persistent contrails, they are not marginal. Under these conditions both aircraft will produce contrails and both will persist. We see more persistent contrails because there are more planes flying.
edit on 5/28/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2014 @ 03:35 AM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse

Regarding this part of that article;



The researchers believe that while continuing to reduce CO2 emissions in aviation, more work needs to be done to reduce contrails as well. This reduction of contrails could present an immediate effect on global warming. Solutions for this could include such things as creating flight plans at lower altitudes and the development of new airplane engines which would either reduce the water vapor released or immediately condense the water into ice that would drop to the ground below.






Planes fly at altitudes where contrails can result because that is where they can fly most efficiently, using the least amount of fuel and, as per my previous post, minimising cost and maximising profit. No operator is going to choose to increase its costs just to make the sky look bluer. The pollutants emitted from jet exhaust will also be increased the more fuel is burned, so what's the trade off? No contrails and blue skies for higher levels of invisible pollution? Is that really better?

Also, how is the last part to be achieved when contrails are already ice?

Regarding an earlier post you made too. Aviation is not subsidised, fuel is already taxed so you are calling for something that is already the norm.
edit on 29-5-2014 by waynos because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2014 @ 02:26 PM
link   
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

That was the point of my post, but obviously the logic was lost on more than a few. My point being, there are plenty of reasons for aluminum being in the atmospheric moisture other than chem-trails.

As other posters have pointed out aluminum has been present in the moisture since first measured at almost a consistent level. Any increase can be attributed to it's natural source, or the fact as I stated Aircraft parts naturally release aluminum dusts/particulate in their normal function with absolutely no ill intent or correlation to this chem-trail nonsense.



posted on May, 30 2014 @ 06:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Hijinx




That was the point of my post, but obviously the logic was lost on more than a few. My point being, there are plenty of reasons for aluminum being in the atmospheric moisture other than chem-trails.


I know that, and my post was more of a rhetorical question more than anything as I know why aluminum will be found in the atmosphere.

And I know it can't come from chemtrails as they as far as I know do not exist.




top topics



 
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join